Since there is no case in which the client will get 4$/TB (without free segments or other trick) I think that this price quate is misleading.
At the minimum it should be “Starts at:” and then the minimum price without free segments (its the same logic as not writing come and store for free since we have promo code for the first x gb).
For the segment, you assuming the user have big files and the only reason he has many segments is s3 default.
I make a counter claim that for manny use cases (that advertise in Storj as legitimate case) this is simply not the case.
The avarge file is considerably smaller for:
Photos, code files (.js, .html etc.), documnet, songs, video fregment and so on.
This mean, that for the avarge user the price going to be significantly higher then expected (and as advertised) especially compared the competition.
I get that you want to give incentives for big files, but, if your network is basically engendered for big files only you should state this loud and clear (and, just pointing out that you total market is significantly smaller then any notmal object storage since the majority of files size is indead smaller, and nope, conconate multiple files to one segment from the user side is not a normal expectation, if you want to do your magic behind the scenes is your bussiness, but for the UX is must be a normal as give me file x (the same as aws s3))